Handgun Hunting Support

[savagefan]

You need to think in terms of 'how can I convince other hunters who know little about handguns that this activity can be done in a manner that is every bit as ethical as rifle hunting'.

I am, and that is why I've made mention of the things and experiences by some of those in the know. An effort first to show or convince some within our ranks as there seem to be some that are somewhat doubting. Step two, convince the rank & file hunters, then, the general public.[/QUOTE]

I just wrote off my restricted and am waiting for my license. I can not believe the amount of non gun-owners at work and neighbours and friends, even my golf fanatic brother all want to come to the range to shoot my pistols when I get them. Every body likes hand guns it seems, the rest are liars. Take riflemen handgun shooting for a day, best way to make believers outa them.

 

[Salty]

This is from the Ruger web sight. From the main page following 'hunting' as a useage you get to these Super blackhawks for instance. This would be my choice:

That's a 5 1/2" barreled SBH and would be about perfect to me. Ruger also makes 10", 71/2" and 4 3/4' barrels.

Have a look: http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firea...amid=15&variation=Blued&bct=Yes&type=Revolver

Now why would we want to dismiss half the line up of the most popular hunting revolver in n america

 

[joe-nwt]

In the end, no one is going to run around with a tape measure to see what distance you shot at. Just as with rifles, it will be up to the individual to use his skills, ethics and common sense to dictate at what distance he or she will feel comfortable shooting at. So barrel length means nothing, really.

I know,I know, back to my corner and shaddup......

 

[Salty]

So barrel length means nothing, really.

Unfortunately barrel length does mean something to some, as barrels under 100mm are already prohibited in Canada

And until that's not the case, that's a good place to leave any handgun regs present or future IMHO.

 

[Foxer]

The point is that a 4" barrel 44 magnum has enough power to kill a moose or elk at 200 yards, so your concerns regarding barrel length and how it effects power are irrelevent.

Gatehouse - that is just plain ridiculous. That is like saying because a woman killed a grizzlie with a 22lr that it is obviously an effective grizzlie hunting cartridge.

I didn't miss the point - you guys need to take some elementary logic courses somewhere. Just because a specific person managed to get a kill at a long range does not mean that cartridge is adequate to kill game regularly with the kind of reliability that we require not to wound animals.

And frankly - any ####### who'd shoot at an elk THAT far with a gun like that is not someone i'd be putting forward as the 'ambassador' of handgun hunting if i were you.

Offering up a single example of what amounts to a 'trick shot' as proof that it's acceptable for regular use by people of average skill in a variety of different hunting circumstances is a logical fallicy known frequently as 'complete bull####'.

Here's an example of an intelligent phrase we could offer to the ministry: "every year, hundreds of handgunners in several American states shoot elk with handguns, and we've spoken to several co's down there who feel there is no evidence at all of any unusual number of wounded or unrecovered animals. Here's the transcript of our conversations with them.".

Here's an example of something that's patently insane to offer as evidence:
" some guy you probably haven't heard of but who's well known once managed to bag an animal at a range we wouldn't recommend on one occasion, so therefore we think it's ok to use for hunting".

The fact that one person got in a lucky shot with a CLEARLY underpowered tool for the range is not proof that it's a good tool for anyone else. That should be a pretty simple point to realize.

 

[Salty]

I'm with you there Foxer, one 'stunt' shot doesn't deserve to make policy.

But we're mixing two things together here. A long shot with a shorter barrel.

No one is going to say that an archer should be shooting xyz lbs strength bow at 200 yards. But thought is given to minimum strength bows being used for legal hunting. It is up to the hunter to determine practical range.

Practical range (for me) to hunt deer with a handgun wouldn't be much past 50 yards. The length of the barrel is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Salty]

And another thing

This business about decreasing velocity in shorter barrels is much, much less of an issue with larger bore cartridges. The difference in velocitys are quite minimal and some cases a shorter barrel can beat a longer barrel in velocity Here's a decent article that deals with this:

http://www.gunweek.com/2002/feature0601.html

 

[Foxer]

Practical range (for me) to hunt deer with a handgun wouldn't be much past 50 yards. The length of the barrel is pretty much irrelevant.

Well it's all largely irrelevent. We're actually confusing two things here - what is reality and what is demonstrable to the public and ministry.

Whatever we do, we have to be able to demonstrate that THIS gun in THIS configuration in the hands of an AVERAGE shooter is quite acceptible to take x type of game with enough consistancy and margin for 'error' (like hitting some bone) that we won't experience any more wounded animals than we could expect from 'standard' hunting tools.

Now - that covers a few areas. The gun, the cartridges, and the shooter. It will have to be demonstrated that concerns about all three of those things have been 'addressed' in order to actually get our rights in this area back.

So however we phrase it, how ever we present it, whatever we choose to use as our recommendations and arguments, they must be demonstrable by real evidence, not anecdotal evidence offered about a single event which proves nothing.

Here's what it looks like in a perfect world when we go to the ministry and to the other hunters:

1) - these cartridges are in extensive regular use, and here is evidence to demonstrate conclusively that they are acceptable and will not wound game any more than 'rifle' cartridges.

2) - these guns are regularly used for hunting, and are known to be effective platforms for the handgun hunter. We can prove that with the following information...

3) - handgun users with x level of skill will have no problem using a gun as described above with the cartridges described above to harvest animals as well as a rifle hunter out to a range of x. This can be seen in the following information.

4) - While not every hunter will feel the need to use a handgun, there are several circumstances where handguns are a PREFERABLE choice to a rifle for hunters. Therefore there is a real need for them beyond simply 'feeling like it'. Here are some of the circumstances where hunters will choose a handgun over a rifle.

5) according to police, co and other gov't sources in areas where handgun hunting is allowed, there have been no increased accidents, crime or abuse that can be attributed to handgun use for hunting in those areas. Here's the data on that.


So - it's safe, it's effective and there is a real need for it that is not currently filled by rifles.

THAT my friends is a slam-dunk case.

 

[Gatehouse]

Gatehouse - that is just plain ridiculous. That is like saying because a woman killed a grizzlie with a 22lr that it is obviously an effective grizzlie hunting cartridge.

No...You seem to still be havinng trouble understanding this, so I will try to be more clear,

You had a concern that a 5" barrel 44 magnum was not up to the task, so we should use the 7.5" barrel 44 magnum which gave the cartridge more velocity, and was able to do the job.

We are saying that at 200 yards, the 44 magnum has enough power to kill an elk.

Therefore, the difference in velocity between a 5" and 7.5" barrel and how it relates ot killing power at normal ranges like 50 yards is irrelevent, since at 200 yards, the velocity is much lower than the 5" barrel at 50 yards..

I didn't miss the point - you guys need to take some elementary logic courses somewhere. Just because a specific person managed to get a kill at a long range does not mean that cartridge is adequate to kill game regularly with the kind of reliability that we require not to wound animal

s.

Not because Elmer Keith did it once, but because he took game n a regular basis out to 400 yards withhis handguns, and others have done the same. which you woudl know if you had doen a bit more research.

And frankly - any a**hole who'd shoot at an elk THAT far with a gun like that is not someone i'd be putting forward as the 'ambassador' of handgun hunting if i were you.

Elmer Keith was the guy that got the 44Mag ball rolling...He is possibly the most well known handgunner of modern times. But I guess he's just an asshoel to you.

Offering up a single example of what amounts to a 'trick shot' as proof that it's acceptable for regular use by people of average skill in a variety of different hunting circumstances is a logical fallicy known frequently as 'complete bulls**t'.

If you had looked into it, you would know that it wasn't ust a single example, nor was it a "trick" shot. It was skill and proper tools and uncanny marksmanship.

Nobody is sugesting that hunters shoudl take 200 yard shots, we are suggesting the power is there at 200- and at normal ranges like 50 yards, we do;t need to quibble over power levels between 5" and 7.5" barrels, shooting the same cartridge.

Here's an example of an intelligent phrase we could offer to the ministry: "every year, hundreds of handgunners in several American states shoot elk with handguns, and we've spoken to several co's down there who feel there is no evidence at all of any unusual number of wounded or unrecovered animals. Here's the transcript of our conversations with them.".

yes, that is just as I suggested....Gather evidence form states, and present it.

Here's an example of something that's patently insane to offer as evidence:
" some guy you probably haven't heard of but who's well known once managed to bag an animal at a range we wouldn't recommend on one occasion, so therefore we think it's ok to use for hunting".

Again, it wasn't a one off shot. He routinely took game out to 400 yards wihth a handgun. But..Again- Noone is sugesting that we use Elmer keiths experiences to illustrate normal handgun hunting. We were using his experience to demonstate "killing power"

The fact that one person got in a lucky shot with a CLEARLY underpowered tool for the range is not proof that it's a good tool for anyone else. That should be a pretty simple point to realize

You stil miss the point,but hopefully I managed to clear it up a bit.

PS He didn't get lucky once- He got lucky hundreds of times.

 

[Foxer]

This business about decreasing velocity in shorter barrels is much, much less of an issue with larger bore cartridges. The difference in velocitys are quite minimal

The article you posted demonstrates that in SOME cases the difference is minimal, in other cases its' not so minimal.

When you're dealing with velocities around the 1000 fps mark, the loss of 60 fps represents a 6 percent reduction in speed. Considering the speed is already very low, that's a little scary.

Now - does that make a HUGE difference in killing power in a gun that relies primarily on 'momentum' to get the job done? Probably not. But the world is already trained to look at guns killing power in terms of kinetic energy and speed. That is why super-mega-ultra magnums are popular.

You cannot hope to re-educate the general hunting population in any kind of timely fashion. There's too much hype that 'speed kills'.

So - you need to address the PERCEPTION that these guns are underpowered.

One way is to address barrel length to point out that 'hunting handguns are designed to get the most power out of a cartridge possible in a handgun'.

There are other ways as well, but the bottom line is you are going to have to convince people that the handguns that will be used are 'a little bit better' than regular handguns, not that they're 'not much worse'.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

No...You seem to still be havinng trouble understanding this, so I will try to be more clear,

You had a concern that a 5" barrel 44 magnum was not up to the task, so we should use the 7.5" barrel 44 magnum which gave the cartridge more velocity, and was able to do the job.

We are saying that at 200 yards, the 44 magnum has enough power to kill an elk.

Therefore, the difference in velocity between a 5" and 7.5" barrel and how it relates ot killing power at normal ranges like 50 yards is irrelevent, since at 200 yards, the velocity is much lower than the 5" barrel at 50 yards..


s.

Not because Elmer Keith did it once, but because he took game n a regular basis out to 400 yards withhis handguns, and others have done the same. which you woudl know if you had doen a bit more research.



Elmer Keith was the guy that got the 44Mag ball rolling...He is possibly the most well known handgunner of modern times. But I guess he's just an asshoel to you.



If you had looked into it, you would know that it wasn't ust a single example, nor was it a "trick" shot. It was skill and proper tools and uncanny marksmanship.

Nobody is sugesting that hunters shoudl take 200 yard shots, we are suggesting the power is there at 200- and at normal ranges like 50 yards, we do;t need to quibble over power levels between 5" and 7.5" barrels, shooting the same cartridge.



yes, that is just as I suggested....Gather evidence form states, and present it.



Again, it wasn't a one off shot. He routinely took game out to 400 yards wihth a handgun. But..Again- Noone is sugesting that we use Elmer keiths experiences to illustrate normal handgun hunting. We were using his experience to demonstate "killing power"



You stil miss the point,but hopefully I managed to clear it up a bit.

PS He didn't get lucky once- He got lucky hundreds of times.

You beat me to it. Well said. As I indicated earlier on, our first hurdle is to convince those in our midst, THEN take 'it' to the next step. Good rebutal.

 

[BCWILL]

Folks,
Everyone can Squabble about "Killing Power" of Handguns till the cows come home..........
It don't mean squat ! and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "Logic" behind dissallowing Handguns for Hunting in Canada !!!

FWIW: I have a Bud with a 454 Casull........He can Knock over the steel rams at 200 meters all day long with the original iron sights. (this guy shot Pistol sillouette matches for a spell and given is one of the best shots I've seen, just an example of what is possible with abit of know how and effort)

I also guarantee any critter that takes one of those 300 grain pills in the vitals at that distance is as good as Dead ! Whether it came from a Handgun or not

Bottom line is as Long as ANY person can run out, take the Core, Buy a Hunting license and run around with a Bow and Arrow shooting at whatever ??? without any "practical training" then arguements about the effectiveness of Handguns on Game is certainly a Mute point.

Give anyone a Handgun & Bow without training or Prcatise and Obviously the Handgun would be the "Easier" of the 2 to accomplish "Clean Kills" with.....yet WE squabble about the effectiveness of a Handgun Cartridge ?

The real sell for Handgun Hunting is gonna be getting rid of the socalled "Safety concerns" and media induced "Fear" the general Public seems to have regarding Handguns......Until this Changes it's an Impossible Dream

 

[Gatehouse]

I wonder if applying for an ATC for hutning purposes- in a province that does not disallow handgun hunting (liek BC used to be) woudl be a logical first step?

Apply, get denied and then start a court case?

I dunno...

 

[Salty]

I appreciate you playing the role of the devil's advocate Foxer or at least pointing out what you precieve as questions/concerns that antis or those not convinced would come up with. And I'm sure barrel length might come up. I mean you brought it up, so obviously others would think of it too right

I and the Gatemeister are just trying to point out that in our experience. with hand guns it is much less of an issue particularly in the larger bore power houses.

You are correct that we need to show that the tools for this job of hand gun hunting are 'supperior' or at least 'up for the task' over some hand guns that are out there. Now granted, the average person likely pictures a bad assed gang banger emptying his 13 shots of 9mm out of his silver plated Glock and would cringe to think of this guy hunting deer. And this is not what I'd personally want to see either.

So rules with scientific backing are not out of line. I can see a minimum calibre for hunting ungulates. I would even go as far as considering minimum energy levels. We do that in BC for instance already for buffalo hunting as an example.

Here's a starting recommended minimum from yours truely for hunting deer sized animals:

minimum calibre: 40

mag capacity: 6

minimum energy: 1000 ft/lbs

I just pulled those out of my but and reserve the right to change my mind But this might be the kind of thing to look in to.

Oh also there's a bit of info late in that article about the author working with government in Washington state to alow hand gun hunting. Which they have now.

 

[Foxer]

We are saying that at 200 yards, the 44 magnum has enough power to kill an elk.

This is so simple, i cannot believe you are not grasping this basic concept.

A 22lr has enough power to kill a human at 200 yards - yet it is not an acceptable choice for a sniper rifle is it.

A 22lr can easily kill a moose at 100 yards if you hit it right, but we don't allow 22lr to be used for hunting moose.

The fact that it COULD kill an animal does not make it acceptible to use it as a regular hunting tool for that animal.

That is so elementary - so easily demonstrated - that if you cannot see that there really is no point in discussing anything any further.

Which is - i guarantee - what you'll hear from other hunters and the ministry if you try to present it as an argument.

Elmer Keith was the guy that got the 44Mag ball rolling...He is possibly the most well known handgunner of modern times. But I guess he's just an asshoel to you.

If he thought it was fun shooting at elk at 400 yards with a handgun.... yep he's an ####### to me. Maybe not JUST an ####### - but definitely an #######. A guy can be a great gunsmith and still be an #######.

Not because Elmer Keith did it once, but because he took game n a regular basis out to 400 yards withhis handguns, and others have done the same.

And how many did he wound, and these others wound? Not how many did he talk about, but how many did he ACTUALLY wound? And how many were wounded by other #######s attempting to duplicate this?

It was skill and proper tools and uncanny marksmanship.

So... you're saying that we should base our decisions about how the general population hunts based on the activities of a guy who has 'uncanny marksmanship'.

And you don't see why that might not be a good example of what the 'average' hunter should be able to do?

But..Again- Noone is sugesting that we use Elmer keiths experiences to illustrate normal handgun hunting. We were using his experience to demonstate "killing power"

if a gun requires 'uncanny marksmanship' to be lethal, it's not got sufficient power.

Again - you can easily kill a moose with a 22lr. That's a well known fact. It's been done many times. And i bet if you took a good shooter with a well tricked out 22 into the field, he'd probably be able to kill maybe even 4/5'ths of the moose he shot at on average. (and yes, I'd still think he was a bit of an ####### for doing it )

But we don't allow people to do it today. Why? Because while it DOES have enough power to do the job, it's not got enough power to do the job reliably and certainly not with most hunters and most 22's.

What you would get is people wounding game. And that's not acceptable.

Surely you can see that. Surely you wouldn't suggest we should allow people to hunt moose with 22's. There is a REASON why you carry a 300 winmag, not a 10/22 in the field.

When we're talking about allowing people to do something, it has to be something the average person can do with consistency. An average person can shoot a rifle accurately enough to kill game consistently, and modern rifle cartridges have enough power to kill game consistently. The average hunter can expect to go out and barring a malfunction of the bullet or firearm kill game about 99 percent of the time.

If we can't get the same thing out of average people with handguns, then we shouldn't allow it.

I'm sure we can, but some idiot shooting at 400 yards at an elk is not proof of that.

 

[Foxer]

Well said. As I indicated earlier on, our first hurdle is to convince those in our midst, THEN take 'it' to the next step.

If you think it's ok to shoot at elk at 400 yards with a handgun - you've just convinced me that it's the worst thing we could possibly allow.

 

[Salty]

Jebus H Kahrisste..... We're all getting mixe up now

You had a concern that a 5" barrel 44 magnum was not up to the task, so we should use the 7.5" barrel 44 magnum which gave the cartridge more velocity, and was able to do the job.

We are saying that at 200 yards, the 44 magnum has enough power to kill an elk.

That's all Gate is saying. that a 44 mag with a 5" barrel has enough energy at long range so it should likely work just fine at reasonable range too. I don't recall him promoting anyone trying Elmer style hunting.

 

[Foxer]

Here's a starting recommended minimum from yours truely for hunting deer sized animals:

minimum calibre: 40

mag capacity: 6

minimum energy: 1000 ft/lbs

I just pulled those out of my but and reserve the right to change my mind But this might be the kind of thing to look in to.

As long as we can back it up with some form of demonstrable evidence then it's as good as anything. I guess the '6 shot' thing is to overcome concerns that people will 'spray and pray' hunt. Probably necessary i guess. There are already places that limit hunting rifles to 5 rounds for semi's i believe out of those kinds of fears.

One thing in our advantage is that the 44 mag is already in use as a hunting cartridge. Sure - it's out of a much longer barrel, but 44 carbines are in use already so there IS some 'evidence' to put forward. The various ministries haven't had a problem with the actual cartridge so far, we're just talking about the same cartridge in a more compact platform. (ok, it's a little more than that but you get the idea.)

 

[Foxer]

That's all Gate is saying. that a 44 mag with a 5" barrel has enough energy at long range so it should likely work just fine at reasonable range too. I don't recall him promoting anyone trying Elmer style hunting.

If you offer it as an example of 'handgun hunting' you are by default offering it as an example of acceptable behavior.

And there was never any real doubt that it COULD kill animals. As i said, there's no doubt in my mind a 22 can kill moose. But that is not the sole requirement for it to be an acceptable hunting cartridge.

 

[Salty]

He he he...

I was just thinking Elmer Keith probably made these long range shots and wrote and bragged about them just to piss Jack O Connor off and show him his 270 pea shooter wasn't any better than his 44 six shooter...

Two stubborn guys. Just like Foxer and Gatehouse